"Theory of the Earth" one hundred years ago, did these feeble glows rise into a steady light. This admirable book, aided by the publications of Playfair, the talented exponent of Hutton's views, effectually combated the catastrophic theories of its predecessors, and placed the study of geological changes on a scientific basis. Observation took the place of speculation, and the authority of fact that of tradition, but not without a long and severe struggle. Philosophers, however much impressed by the value of geological facts and deductions, were loath to give up old and cherished ideas. They clung to their traditional faith in spite of the eloquent illustrations of Playfair and the philosophical reasoning of Lyell. The name of geologist was, in the minds of many people fifty years ago, suggestive of atheistical tendencies, and such a subject as the age of the earth could not at that time be discussed without suspicion of irreverence. At the present day, however, it is one of the open questions of science, and has been freely debated by philosophers of high standing in various branches of study. The geologist, the physicist, and the astronomer have all applied their knowledge and means of investigation to the solution of this difficult problem, and their labours have had considerable effect in advancing the state of knowledge and thought in all their sciences.' And very recently Dr. John Struthers said, 'If the mode of "creation" by descent applies to forms below man, as the evidence goes, it applies no less to the origin of human species. This disposes of the Adam and Eve tradition, and all that hangs by it.'[1]
35. Before quitting this portion of the subject, it is
- ↑ Scotsman, 4th Aug., 1896.
